The Great D&D Schism: The End of an age and the scattering of gamers

[D'karr]

And because you experienced a bookkeeping challenge means that all that stuff that the 3.5 books themselves say about not being a new edition is a lie. Got it.

I don't recall ever mentioning anything about a new edition being a lie. You might want to check your sources.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I don't recall ever mentioning anything about a new edition being a lie. You might want to check your sources.

Well, you either think it's true or it isn't. Can we assume you agree with the line in the 3.5 books that says that it isn't a new edition?

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

I don't recall ever mentioning anything about a new edition being a lie. You might want to check your sources.

Then what in the hell are you even arguing for?

Jesus Christ, these boards are full of people who argue just to argue.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In the big scheme of things RPGs are not important.

However, the fact that almost every spell had to be rechecked for accuracy makes the change quite important. It made it so that you had to go look up everything again. Because you could not be sure of what had changed or not. To me and my group that was a pretty big time waster, a big deal, even if the differences were as you say "small".

If I'm running the game that is quite important.

I have to say, people are right that there were little changes and were important during play, but having made the switch like so many others, it just didn't feel like a different edition to me. Revision seems the correct description of 3.5. You still had the same classes, you still had basically the same game. Comare that to 2E where they took our whole classes, reorganized the classes and rewrote all the text (taking out significant GM procedures and advice. Or compare to the different between 3.5 and 4E. 3.5 was a speed bump. But still the same game.

 

[D'karr]

Then what in the hell are you even arguing for?

Jesus Christ, these boards are full of people who argue just to argue.

If there ever was a "pot meet kettle" moment this must have been it.

 

[Desdichado]

The devs at the time made perfectly clear that it wasn't a new edition. Some of you can shiut it until the cows come home but it still remains a fact that 3.5 was a revision.

Who cares what the devs said? Lacking a meaningful definition of what makes a revision vs. a new edition, that's a completely meaningless statement, especially from a party that had a vested interest in emphasizing continuity.

I could (and in fact do) make a better line in sand of what the difference is by referring to whether or not I needed to "rebuy" a bunch of books in order to play (or download a new SRD, as the case may be.) Why not that definition? That has a much more meaningful impact on me as a player.

If you want to nitpick (as some have already done in this thread) that you can play a 3e character in a 3.5 or even Pathfinder game with minimal adjusting of little details, then how to you answer the fact that you could do the same with a 1e player in a 2e game? Is 2e just a "revision" instead of a new edition? How about the fact that you could do the same with a BD&D character? Is BD&D just a "revision" too? How about the notion that you could play a d20 Modern character, for that matter, in a Pathfinder game without too much fuss? Does that mean that d20 Modern is just a "revision" too?

Hopefully the notion that continuity and ability to play without too much fuss is abley demonstrated to be no indication of what a "new edition" is already. Revision vs. new edition, either one, is really just a marketing gimmick. There's no meaningful distinction between the two that is consistent and non-arbitrary.

To go back to my analogy, I've personally witnessed several times instances where reporters from Argentina went to either Brazil or Italy and spoke to people on the street (usually about the Argentine soccer player that just got transferred to a local team.) They'd ask questions in Spanish, and the people on the street would understand well enough to be able to answer in Portuguese or Italian. Which, again, was understood well enough that the news didn't feel the need to translate or subtitle their answers. Does this imply that Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are actually not separate languages, because people could (sorta) carry on limited conversations with each other? Of course not. Does it imply that 3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder aren't significantly different just because characters can interact with each other using broadly similar rules for a while before some hard rock comes up that requires some ruling to resolve the discrepancy? Not there either.

Doesn't matter how much your group may have struggled with the revision. My group had no trouble what so ever.

Oh, well that resolves it. Your group had no trouble adapting to the new edition, therefore it wasn't really a new edition! Sadly, the logic of such a statement completely eludes me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

ok, lets assume 3.5 is only a Major revision and not a true edition (I've had enough arguments to last a life time in this last two weeks anyway.)

It is still 2 edititions, 3/3.5 and pathfinder against 1e and 2e... so still a longer life cycle at TSR...

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

ok, lets assume 3.5 is only a Major revision and not a true edition (I've had enough arguments to last a life time in this last two weeks anyway.)

It is still 2 edititions, 3/3.5 and pathfinder against 1e and 2e... so still a longer life cycle at TSR...

Want to remind me again what else spawned from those two editions?

Let me remind you that Pathfinder is still going strong.

 

[XunValdorl_of_Kilsek]

Who cares what the devs said? Lacking a meaningful definition of what makes a revision vs. a new edition, that's a completely meaningless statement, especially from a party that had a vested interest in emphasizing continuity.

I could (and in fact do) make a better line in sand of what the difference is by referring to whether or not I needed to "rebuy" a bunch of books in order to play (or download a new SRD, as the case may be.) Why not that definition? That has a much more meaningful impact on me as a player.

If you want to nitpick (as some have already done in this thread) that you can play a 3e character in a 3.5 or even Pathfinder game with minimal adjusting of little details, then how to you answer the fact that you could do the same with a 1e player in a 2e game? Is 2e just a "revision" instead of a new edition? How about the fact that you could do the same with a BD&D character? Is BD&D just a "revision" too? How about the notion that you could play a d20 Modern character, for that matter, in a Pathfinder game without too much fuss? Does that mean that d20 Modern is just a "revision" too?

Hopefully the notion that continuity and ability to play without too much fuss is abley demonstrated to be no indication of what a "new edition" is already. Revision vs. new edition, either one, is really just a marketing gimmick. There's no meaningful distinction between the two that is consistent and non-arbitrary.

To go back to my analogy, I've personally witnessed several times instances where reporters from Argentina went to either Brazil or Italy and spoke to people on the street (usually about the Argentine soccer player that just got transferred to a local team.) They'd ask questions in Spanish, and the people on the street would understand well enough to be able to answer in Portuguese or Italian. Which, again, was understood well enough that the news didn't feel the need to translate or subtitle their answers. Does this imply that Spanish, Portuguese and Italian are actually not separate languages, because people could (sorta) carry on limited conversations with each other? Of course not. Does it imply that 3e, 3.5 and Pathfinder aren't significantly different just because characters can interact with each other using broadly similar rules for a while before some hard rock comes up that requires some ruling to resolve the discrepancy? Not there either.

Oh, well that resolves it. Your group had no trouble adapting to the new edition, therefore it wasn't really a new edition! Sadly, the logic of such a statement completely eludes me.

Mate, I don't care how much text you type. It doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a new edition, nor was there enough base rules changes to even hint at it was one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Want to remind me again what else spawned from those two editions?

Let me remind you that Pathfinder is still going strong.

Pathfinder is a retro clone (the most successful I will grant you) but doesn't every edition have it's own retro clone or two now? They all spawned from the fact that the OGL let them use the basic idea, but at the end of the day there are 1e and 2e knock offs and basic knock offs... so not seeing the difference...